Search for: "Indymac Federal"
Results 161 - 180
of 233
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2012, 10:37 am
IndyMac Federal will only make modification offers to borrowers where doing so will achieve an improved value for IndyMac Federal. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 1:58 pm
In July, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) seized IndyMac. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 7:45 am
IndyMac MBS [Civ. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 3:50 pm
(No, seriously: One of the luminous interstellar geniuses who brought Fannie Mae to its current aphotic state of affairs, upside down to the tune of trillions of dollars, is running national security, and the former director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, was on the board of IndyMac when it finally went toes up — sleep tight, America!) [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 12:35 pm
IndyMac MBS, Inc., No. 11-2998-cv(L) (2d Cir. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 10:08 pm
SEC Approves Proposals to Address Extraordinary Volatility in Individual Stocks and Broader Stock Market, SEC, June 1, 2012 SEC approves plan to ease volatility in US stocks, Reuters, June 1, 2012 More Blog Posts: Look Out for Rule Recommendations on Consolidated Audit Trail, Market-Wide Circuit Breaker Changes, and Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanisms, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 10, 2012 Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp… [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:25 am
IndyMac MBS, Inc., in which the Court will consider whether, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 3:46 pm
Thus, the IndyMac executives approved a loan with insufficient collateral in violation of loan-to-value l [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 4:34 pm
The IndyMac bank failure was one of the largest bank failures during the bank failure wave and the fifth largest bank failure in U.S. history. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 7:42 am
Owens and the question of whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or if alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” is enough. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 8:40 pm
Mutual First Federal Credit Union v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 6:01 pm
Federal Home Loan banks as secured creditor, which is granted priority treatment among secured creditors. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 2:33 am
The judge wiped out the homeowner’s indebtedness completely in an effort to punish IndyMac for being, well… IndyMac. [read post]
14 Nov 2010, 7:55 pm
The Monday morning quarterbacking by the OIG of each federal bank regulatory agency provides an incentive for agency minions to allege, as some have in e-mails to me, that no federal bank regulator has ever been found guilty of shutting down a banks too hastily, but rather of not "putting the incompetent fools who ran these banks out of their misery much sooner. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 4:34 am
Federal dockets could be swamped with individual investors worried about protecting potential Securities Act claims even if they are already members of the class asserting the same causes of action. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 7:48 pm
Certainly, an attorney for some of the defendants in the IndyMac case thinks the FDIC is going to have some difficulties. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 1:13 am
The FDIC’s other companion IndyMac case is more recent. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
In a case involving multiple ghosts of long lost companies, a judge in federal court in Manhattan has held that excess D&O insurers do not have a duty to “drop down” to fill the gaps in coverage caused by the insolvency of underlying insurers. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 5:29 am
I called an IndyMac executive some months ago to inquire as to why it was that the bank only forecloses and never agrees to modify under HAMP guidelines, even though by the date of my call IndyMac/One West was in fact signed on to receive funds from the federal government under HAMP. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 8:00 am
IndyMac MBS, Inc., 13-640, found a pot of gold at the end of their rainbow: the Court granted cert. in the one-time relist to determine whether, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. [read post]
